1. Field of Invention
This invention generally relates to thermoformed apparatus and, more particularly, to a polymeric pallet or container having a communications device.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The 48 inch by 40 inch wood pallet is an integral part of North America's distribution system, and is involved in one way or another in the movement of a significant proportion of all goods bought and sold. According to Material Handling Engineering, (October 1999), page 16, the U.S. Forest Service estimates there are 1.9 billion wooden pallets in America. Approximately 400 million new pallets are needed each year. 175 million of these are pallets repaired for reuse by industry. Therefore, roughly 225 million new wooden pallets enter the supply chain each year. The standard 48 inch by 40 inch wood pallet makes up a significant proportion of the total number of wood pallets within the over-all distribution system.
U.S. Forest Service researchers also found that 225 million wooden pallets are sent to landfills each year. According to CHEP Equipment Pooling Systems, the largest third party pallet leasing company with 94 million wooden pallets, the average 48 inch by 40 inch wooden pallet weighs between 28 pounds and 65 pound at time of manufacture (dry). These traditional wooden pallets range from 48 pounds to 110 pounds in weight (wet) at time of recycling or disposal. Using these figures, approximately 17.8 billion pounds of wood is deposited in landfills each year. APA, the Engineered Wood Association, estimates that a standard 48 inch by 40 inch style lumber stringer pallet has a three year life. The three year cost for this style of wooden pallet is estimated to be $11.74. A three year life is based on 15-24 trips per year. Conventional wooden pallets have limited residual value at the end of their useful life cycle.
According to the Grocery Manufacturers of America (hereinafter “GMA”), the largest end-user of traditional 48 inch by 40 inch wooden pallets within the North American distribution system, the current wooden pallet exchange system costs the industry nearly $2 billion to operate in 1991. For example, the trucking industry is unable to optimize semi trailer loading or per-unit transportation costs because GMA style pallets are not capable of true four-way entry. Drivers are required to exchange loaded pallets for empty pallets after delivery, and because of manual pallet handling injuries, workers compensation claims are significant. Grocery distributors are unable to use automated material handling equipment efficiently because unacceptable wooden pallets must be removed from the pallet supply chain. Grocery manufacturers and shippers experience product damage because of design flaws in traditional wooden pallets. Furthermore, unit loading is not evenly distributed with stringer pallet designs, which results in product and packaging damaged in transport. Manufacturers must use stronger and costlier packaging because of wooden pallet problems. Wooden pallet sanitation and moisture absorption difficulties affect meat and other food processors. Moreover, general pallet deterioration, manifested by protruding nails and staples, splintered wood and missing stringers, results in significant inefficiencies within the over-all distribution system.
More and more companies are finding it preferable to employ third-party pallet management services to control the costs and logistics of using wooden pallets. For example, some fruit growers require pallets on a seasonal basis. Wooden pallets may therefore be rented for short or long terms from third parties. Third party service companies offer nationwide access to pools of wooden pallets, have responsibility for collecting and redeploying pallets where they are needed, and keep the pallet pool at a relatively high level of quality to move product through the distribution channel. The pallet tracking and retrieval systems deployed by the third party providers are more elaborate and efficient than other segments within the wooden pallet market. For example, bar code labels have been used to manage the efficiency of conventional pallet assets. A direct line of sight is, however, required by the scanner to read a bar card label. The performance of these systems has been generally unreliable and costly to implement within a wooden pallet environment.
Conventional Radio Frequency Identification (hereinafter “RFID”) systems have also been used but without success for a number of reasons. For instance, there are too many makes and models of 48 inch by 40 inch wooden pallet in the market. Also, a standard protocol has not been advanced. Furthermore, pallet handling procedures, material deterioration, product damage and repair practices require a more robust RFID tag technology than is currently available and wood is not a stable platform for the attachment of many types of RFID tags. Additionally, radio frequencies are absorbed by moisture in wood, which makes tag reads unreliable. Standard harsh operating conditions within the wooden pallet distribution system, such as thermal shock, sanitation, flexure, vibration, compressive forces, and fork impacts, can cause tag transponder coils to break and fail.
The velocity at which 48 inch by 40 inch wooden pallets travel through the distribution system is far less than optimum because a significant proportion of wooden pallets are not suitable for transporting goods, damage free. Although 175 million pallets are repaired each year, industry observers claim as many as 70% of all wooden pallets have deteriorated from their original specifications. Unacceptable wooden pallets have to be separated from acceptable wooden pallets, which is time consuming, injurious and wasteful. Accordingly, a far larger pool of wooden pallets is maintained in operation than would otherwise be required under optimum conditions. The traditional 48 inch by 40 inch wooden pallet is therefore tremendously inefficient, costing industry billions of dollars annually. Wooden pallets also have considerable negative societal and environmental impacts because the recourses used to purchase, repair and dispose wooden pallets could be more effectively deployed in other less costly product technology alternatives.
Accordingly, plastic pallets have been used to replace wood pallets with some degree of success over the past several years. Plastic pallets are known for their longevity and are generally more durable, lighter weight, compatible with automated material handling equipment, easily sanitized and 100 percent recyclable. Conventional plastic pallets, however, suffer from one significant disadvantage in that they cost considerably more than a comparable wooden pallet. Thermoplastic materials constitute a significant proportion of the total cost of a plastic pallet, and a given amount of relatively expensive plastic material is required to produce a pallet with a measure of load-bearing strength that is comparable to wooden pallets.
As another example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,986,569 which issued to Mish et al. proposes applying a pressure sensitive tape to the backside of a tag carrier and affixing the carrier to an object. Generally speaking, however, exterior attachment methodologies are not sufficiently robust and durable. Tags affixed to the exterior of the pallet can be damaged through wear and tear, sanitation, forklift impacts, and the like. Also, U.S. Pat. No. 5,936,527 which issued to Isaacman, et al., proposes a “cell” comprising a host transceiver and several local hard lined interrogators that detect local tags. In the Isaacman arrangement, several cells can be networked, which allows any tagged object to be identified from any PC within a multi-cell network.
It is significant that plastic pallet suppliers has been unable to physically identify, locate and track, in real time, comparatively expensive plastic pallets within networks of distribution. It is one thing to lose a low cost wooden pallet, but it is another to loose an expensive asset. Different technologies have been proposed to attempt tracking of pallet assets within the distribution system, but these proposals have been incomplete with respect to system architectures, protocols and plastic pallet design intent. Barcodes have been used, but these require a direct line of sight and have therefore been difficult to implement. RFID tags have been placed upon traditional molded pallets to locate and track their positions within the distribution system, but this type of pallet is so much more expensive than a comparable wooden pallet that the cost justification for implementation is not economical.
Moreover, it is known that conditions within the operating environment affect the performance of the RFID system. Several U.S. patents disclose protocols, circuitry architectures and other enabling methods for ensuring the interrogator properly communicates with one or more tags within an interrogation zone; these include: U.S. Pat. No. 5,229,648 which issued to Shindley et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,479,416 which issued to Snodgrass et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,775 which issued to Tuttle et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,583,819 which issued to Roesner et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,818,348 which issued to Walezak et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,714 which issued to Cato; U.S. Pat. No. 5,929,779 which issued to MacLellen et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,942,987 which issued to Heinrich et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,955,950 which issued to Gallagher et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,963,144 which issued to Kruest and U.S. Pat. No. 5,986,570 which issued to Black et al. Still other proposals are offered to overcome the antenna-to-antenna communication difficulties conventionally experienced by tag carriers, such as pallets, as they travel through interrogation fields or portals. The rapidly changing angular geometry of a tag passing through a field or portal results in a diminishing duration and strength 1 of signal transmission, which can produce unreliable tag reading results. The following U.S. Patents Nos. propose solutions to this particular problem: U.S. Pat. No. 5,661,457 which issued to Ghaffari et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,708,423 which issued to Ghaffari et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,686,928 which issued to Pritchett et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,995,898 which issued to Tuttle; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,091 which issued to Wortham.